I've read that the optimal match rating for growth is not too low, not too high. So ~6.7-6.9 supposedly.
I was about to do a test to find out, but then I realized we can deduce pretty much everything we need to know from EBFM's data.
Age 21 player:
Ambition 1 > 20 = 12 > 13 CA Determination 1 > 20 = 10 > 13.5 CA Professionalism 1 > 20 = 5.5 > 17.5 CA Staff attributes 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA Training facilities 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA League Rep 1 > 100 > 200 = 9 > 11 > 12 CA
Active league = 12.5 CA View only = 16 CA Inactive league = 20 CA
0 games > 41+ games = 0 > 14.5 CA All friendlies > 20-30 games = 4 > 12.5 CA
Loaned out vs not (all other factors equal) = No difference Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA 21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
So overall match rating means nothing for growth, because of the inactive/view-only growth bonuses. But if we're just assessing active leagues and assume roughly +0.15 match rating per division drop, then +0.1 match rating = -0.25 CA/season (-2% growth rate). 6.5 match rating -> 7.4 match rating = -18% growth. This isn't causative of course, just a correlation from which you can infer what's going on.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference. Expand
Exactly what I presumed. I remember EBFM testing win rate and seeing it had no difference. But I didn't remember the morale.
Either way, I think what is happening is someone along the chain of information confused "match experience" which is the term used by EBFM for matches played in a season, to Match Rating. I'm just not sure where people are getting ideal ratings from.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA 21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA Expand One note should be starting CA, if i loan my CA 140 player to lower rep league he won't improve no matter if league is active or not.
ifilipic16 said: One note should be starting CA, if i loan my CA 140 player to lower rep league he won't improve no matter if league is active or not. Expand I was skeptical, but this does seem to be the case. In fact I tested this and after a three-year loan to inactive England Div 6, the 140 CA player remained at 140 CA even though the distribution of his CA changed and his PA was 200.
A 88 CA player (148 PA) I put in inactive Div 6, grew to 96 CA by contrast. An identical player I put in active Div 3, grew to 94 CA but only had ~1/4 the games. An identical player I put in active Div 5, grew to 117 CA.
All players were 20 years old starting.
I will be doing more testing of this, but so far it seems like CA growth is hardcapped by league quality or reputation. And given the active Div 5 player did a lot better than inactive Div 6, maybe they changed the inactive league growth in FM24.. or at least, whatever's causing it, active Vanarama National is simply far better to loan to than inactive Vanarama National North.
This also has some implications beyond loans. It would affect training in general, and I guess suggests optimizing for low CA is even more important.
Am I missing something, or is this the usual collective selection bias coupled with anecdotal evidence?
I've read that the optimal match rating for growth is not too low, not too high. So ~6.7-6.9 supposedly.
I was about to do a test to find out, but then I realized we can deduce pretty much everything we need to know from EBFM's data.
Age 21 player:
Ambition 1 > 20 = 12 > 13 CA
Determination 1 > 20 = 10 > 13.5 CA
Professionalism 1 > 20 = 5.5 > 17.5 CA
Staff attributes 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA
Training facilities 1 > 10 > 20 = 9 > 12 > 12.5 CA
League Rep 1 > 100 > 200 = 9 > 11 > 12 CA
Active league = 12.5 CA
View only = 16 CA
Inactive league = 20 CA
0 games > 41+ games = 0 > 14.5 CA
All friendlies > 20-30 games = 4 > 12.5 CA
Loaned out vs not (all other factors equal) = No difference
Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference
Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA
21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA
Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA
Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA
Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA
Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
So overall match rating means nothing for growth, because of the inactive/view-only growth bonuses. But if we're just assessing active leagues and assume roughly +0.15 match rating per division drop, then +0.1 match rating = -0.25 CA/season (-2% growth rate). 6.5 match rating -> 7.4 match rating = -18% growth. This isn't causative of course, just a correlation from which you can infer what's going on.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Win rate/Relative strength of opposition = No difference
Player morale Perfect > Okay > Abysmal = 17 > 17.04 > 17.29 CA
Since win rate and morale make no difference, I think it's reasonable to assume match rating in and of itself makes no difference.
Exactly what I presumed. I remember EBFM testing win rate and seeing it had no difference. But I didn't remember the morale.
Either way, I think what is happening is someone along the chain of information confused "match experience" which is the term used by EBFM for matches played in a season, to Match Rating. I'm just not sure where people are getting ideal ratings from.
GeorgeFloydOverdosed said: Match/league reputation does matter, but not that much. The main thing is minutes played in competitive matches, preferably in inactive leagues (though they may have readjusted this again since FM23).
Rough comparison:
21 year old playing 25 first team matches (Div 1), 6.5 match rating, great facilities = +13 CA
21 year old staying at Div 1 team and playing in reserves, 7.4 match rating, great facilities = +4 CA
Loaned to Div 3 (active), 25 matches, 6.7 rating, good facilities = +11.5 CA
Loaned to Foreign Div 2 (view-only), 25 matches, 6.8 rating, good facilities = +14.5 CA
Loaned to Div 5 (active), 35 matches, 7.0 rating, average facilities = +12.5 CA
Loaned to Div 6 (inactive), 35 matches, 7.1 rating, crap facilities = +15.5 CA
One note should be starting CA, if i loan my CA 140 player to lower rep league he won't improve no matter if league is active or not.
ifilipic16 said: One note should be starting CA, if i loan my CA 140 player to lower rep league he won't improve no matter if league is active or not.
I was skeptical, but this does seem to be the case. In fact I tested this and after a three-year loan to inactive England Div 6, the 140 CA player remained at 140 CA even though the distribution of his CA changed and his PA was 200.
A 88 CA player (148 PA) I put in inactive Div 6, grew to 96 CA by contrast.
An identical player I put in active Div 3, grew to 94 CA but only had ~1/4 the games.
An identical player I put in active Div 5, grew to 117 CA.
All players were 20 years old starting.
I will be doing more testing of this, but so far it seems like CA growth is hardcapped by league quality or reputation. And given the active Div 5 player did a lot better than inactive Div 6, maybe they changed the inactive league growth in FM24.. or at least, whatever's causing it, active Vanarama National is simply far better to loan to than inactive Vanarama National North.
This also has some implications beyond loans. It would affect training in general, and I guess suggests optimizing for low CA is even more important.